Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: it discloses the business-day-only update cadence, the absence of server-side filtering, the sub-agency expansion behavior for PI filings, and that unfiltered responses can exceed 170KB. It even names the response field (filters_applied.includes_sub_agencies) that confirms filtering behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and update cadence, then a structured parameter list; nearly every sentence earns its place. The agency_filter explanation is long but justified by the non-obvious sub-agency behavior; minor tightening is possible in the pre-publication definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, filtering mechanics, size caveats, and the confirming response field. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it or interpret its filtering correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does: agency_filter is a case-insensitive substring match against slugs/names/short names with sub-agency expansion explained and a worked example ('defense-department' or 'DOD' returns Army, Navy, etc.), keyword_filter is a title substring match, and limit is bounded (default 50, max 500) with a payload-size rationale.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get current public inspection documents") and immediately defines the resource as pre-publication FR documents, which separates it from search_documents and get_document. The scope note that the endpoint returns only unpublished, business-day-updated filings makes the boundary unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete use case ("early notice of upcoming regulatory actions") and explains that filtering must be done client-side because the endpoint lacks server-side filtering, which implicitly tells the agent to prefer this tool's filters over post-processing. It does not explicitly contrast with search_documents for already-published content, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.